REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 112 references
Coherent State Path Integral Reveals Unexpected Vacuum Structure in Thermal Field Theory
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A coherent-state path integral for thermal scalar fields reveals a vacuum-expectation-value coupling to the mass term.
desk verdict A thorough coherent-state path integral derivation undercut by a normal-ordering artifact and a factor-of-two error in the headline term. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the field-basis coherent state $|\phi_{i,a}\rangle = N^+_{i,i}\hat D(\phi_{i,a})|0\rangle$, with displacement operator $\hat D(\phi_{i,a}) = \exp[-i(\Delta x)^n\sum_r(\phi_{x_r,i}\hat\pi_{x_r,a}-\pi_{x_r,i}\hat\phi_{x_r,a})]$, connected to the ladder basis by $\alpha_{pk,i}=E_k\phi_{pk,i}+i\pi_{pk,i}$. These states are displaced free vacua that are eigenstates of the annihilation operator but not of the field operator. When inserted into the Trotterized trace, they shift the field and momentum operators by the classical phase-space configuration, so vacuum expectation values such as $\langle 0|\hat\phi^2|0\rangle$ appear as coefficients of the classical fields. Keeping terms to first order in $\Delta\tau$ yields the modified mass term of eq. (106).
What would settle it
Compute the interacting partition function on a finite spatial lattice using a rigorously regulated field-eigenstate basis (or a normal-ordered Hamiltonian) and compare the coefficient of $\phi^2$ in the action with eq. (106). If the term involving $\langle 0|\hat\phi^2|0\rangle$ is absent or cancels, the claimed vacuum structure is an artifact of the coherent-state basis and operator ordering.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central discovery is that a coherent-state path integral for the thermal partition function contains operator vacuum expectation values that the standard derivation misses. In the free theory, both the ladder-operator and field-operator coherent-state bases produce the same vacuum energy contribution to the Euclidean action; in the field basis this arises from the measure and matrix elements rather than from the Hamiltonian. For interacting $\phi^4$, expanding the shifted operator $(\hat\phi + \phi)^4$ between coherent states gives $6\phi^2\langle 0|\hat\phi^2|0\rangle$, which combines with the mass counterterm to modify the effective mass, as in eq. (106). The paper also provides the first explicit mapping between field-basis and ladder-basis coherent states via $\alpha_{pk,i}=E_k\phi_{pk,i}+i\pi_{pk,i}$, and attributes the failure of the standard derivation to the ill-definedness of the field-eigenstate resolution of unity.
Load-bearing premise
The result depends on starting from the un-normal-ordered Hamiltonian and on choosing coherent states built on the free vacuum; if the physically preferred ordering is normal ordering, or if the standard field-eigenstate path integral can be made well-defined with a suitable regulator, the new vacuum-mass coupling disappears or cancels.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The same construction applied to the free theory produces an explicit vacuum energy term in the Euclidean action in both ladder and field bases, so the textbook path integral silently drops this contribution.
- For $\phi^4$, the effective mass becomes $\frac{m_r^2}{2}+\frac12(\delta m+\frac{\lambda_r+\delta\lambda}{2}\langle 0|\hat\phi^2|0\rangle)$, implying the physical mass depends on the volume in a finite box.
- The extra divergence from $\langle 0|\hat\phi^2|0\rangle$ must be absorbed into the mass and coupling counterterms, changing the renormalization structure of finite-volume $\phi^4$.
- The in/out scattering path integral should contain an analogous VEV-mass coupling, motivating a re-evaluation of standard vacuum scattering amplitudes.
- The field-basis/ladder-basis coherent-state mapping is claimed to be new and can be used to define the path integral measure without ill-defined field eigenstates.
Reading between the lines
- If the extra mass coupling survives renormalization, finite-volume thermodynamic quantities such as the pressure and trace anomaly will receive corrections of order $\lambda\langle 0|\hat\phi^2|0\rangle$, which is testable in lattice simulations of scalar theories.
- The basis-dependence of the counterterm structure suggests the split between kinetic, mass, and vacuum parts of the action is not unique; only the sum of counterterms and VEVs is physical.
- A similar construction might extend to fermionic and gauge theories, potentially adding finite-volume corrections to the QCD equation of state, though this is not worked out in the paper.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper rederives the thermal partition function for a free massive scalar field on a finite spatial lattice using coherent states, first in the ladder-operator basis and then in a field-operator (displaced-vacuum) basis, and extends the latter construction to interacting λφ^4 theory. The free-theory result reproduces the usual Euclidean action plus an explicit vacuum-energy term in both bases. For the interacting theory, the authors find an additional term coupling the vacuum expectation value ⟨0|φ̂²|0⟩ to the classical field φ², which modifies the mass term; they claim this coupling is absent from the existing literature and has physical consequences for finite-volume masses and renormalization. The paper also presents a mapping between ladder-basis and field-basis coherent states, with detailed proofs in the appendices.
Significance. If the claimed vacuum-mass coupling were a genuine and previously missed contribution to the thermal path integral, it would affect the counterterm structure and finite-volume predictions of scalar field theories and would justify re-examining standard TFT derivations. The manuscript is also technically ambitious: the coherent-state identities, commutation relations, and normalizations in Appendices G1-G6 are worked out in unusual detail, and the explicit mapping between field-basis and ladder-basis coherent states in eqs. (60)-(63) is a legitimate technical exercise. These strengths do not, however, establish the central physical claim: as discussed below, the extra coupling is a normal-ordering artifact of the chosen representation, and the central equation contains a factor-of-two error. The paper therefore does not currently support its advertised conclusion.
major comments (4)
- [§III.B, eqs. (104)-(106)] The coefficient of the claimed vacuum-mass coupling is miscounted. Expanding (λ_r/4!)(φ̂+φ_i)^4 and (δλ/4!)(φ̂+φ_i)^4 with the vacuum expectation value ⟨0|(φ̂+φ_i)^4|0⟩ gives a cross term 6 φ_i² ⟨0|φ̂²|0⟩. Since 6/4! = 1/4, the combined coefficient in eqs. (105) and (106) should be (λ_r+δλ)/4, not (λ_r+δλ)/2. This is a concrete algebraic error in the paper's central displayed result, and it means the claimed new mass-shift term is not even internally consistent.
- [§III.B, eqs. (104)-(106)] The asserted vacuum-mass coupling is the standard normal-ordering subtraction rather than a new physical effect. For the free vacuum, :φ̂⁴: = φ̂⁴ − 6 φ̂²⟨0|φ̂²|0⟩ + constant. The crossover term 6 φ_i²⟨0|φ̂²|0⟩ that appears in eq. (104) is precisely the contribution needed to convert the un-normal-ordered Hamiltonian (86) into a normal-ordered operator when evaluated in displaced coherent states. The paper neither normal-orders the Hamiltonian nor shows that any renormalized observable differs from the standard normal-ordered treatment after the term is absorbed into δm. The description of this algebraic identity as an 'unexpected vacuum structure' is therefore not supported.
- [§I, §II, §IV] The motivation that the standard field-eigenstate path integral is ill-defined is not correct on the finite lattice used in the paper. On a finite lattice with a finite number of degrees of freedom, the field operators at each site commute and the resolution of unity 1 = ∫dφ |φ⟩⟨φ| is an ordinary product of one-dimensional position-eigenstate integrals over real numbers. The paper's claim in §IV that 'the integral over φ appears ill-defined' does not identify a breakdown of the standard derivation; it only registers a preference for a different basis and operator ordering. This matters because the claimed novelty depends on the standard field-eigenstate derivation being invalid.
- [§IV, conclusions and outlook] The claimed physical consequences are not derived from a computation. The VEV-mass term in eq. (106) is local and proportional to φ², so it can be absorbed into a redefinition of the mass counterterm δm; the paper does not compute any renormalized physical observable (mass shift, pressure, or scattering amplitude) that would distinguish its result from the standard treatment. Statements that the observed mass depends on system size or that NNLO amplitudes require reconsideration are speculative without such a demonstration.
minor comments (4)
- [Eq. (75)] The finite difference α_{pk,i} − α_{pk,i−1} is not equal to α_{pk,i}(1 − e^{−iν_ℓΔτ}) as written; the notation conflates the eigenvalue at a site with its Fourier amplitude. Please clarify the Fourier convention used for the thermal circle.
- [Eqs. (54) and (57)] The integration measures in eqs. (54) and (57) are difficult to read: the symbols daϕ_0,i dπ_0,i and ∏′ are not defined explicitly, and it is unclear exactly which modes are integrated over and which are constrained by reality conditions.
- [Abstract and §IV] The statement that the free-theory vacuum energy is 'missed in the usual path integral derivation' is too strong: standard textbook treatments give this constant term when they retain the zero-point energy, and many references simply drop it by convention. Please cite a specific treatment that omits it and explain how the present derivation differs.
- [Throughout] Several equations have ambiguous or missing parentheses; for example, eq. (105) writes the vacuum coupling in a way that can be read as (λ_r+δλ)/2 but should be (λ_r+δλ)/4. A careful pass over the displayed formulas would improve readability.
Circularity Check
The 'unexpected' mass–VEV coupling of eq. (106) is the normal-ordering subtraction of the un-normal-ordered input Hamiltonian: the central 'prediction' reduces to its input representation by construction.
-
self definitional
[Section III.B, eqs. (104)–(106), paragraph after the expansion of ⟨0|(ɵ̂+ɵ_i)^4|0⟩]
"Next, we expand the shifted interaction term ⟨0| ( ɵ̂xr (t) + ɵxri ̂1 )4 |0⟩ = ɵ4 xri + 6ɵ2 xri ⟨0| ɵ̂2 xr (t) |0⟩ + ⟨0| ɵ̂4 xr (t) |0⟩, which reveals an important structural feature: unlike in the free theory, the interaction term now couples the vacuum fluctuations to the fields, thereby modifying the effective mass term in the action."
The claimed 'coupling of a vacuum expectation value to the mass term' is not a derived prediction but an identity of the chosen representation. The coherent states of eqs. (95)–(96) are displaced free vacua, and eq. (104) evaluates ⟨0|(ɵ̂+ɵ_i)⁴|0⟩ using the free-vacuum contraction C ≡ ⟨0|ɵ̂²|0⟩ of the interaction-picture field (93). For that field ɵ̂⁴ = :ɵ̂⁴: + 6Cɵ̂² − 3C², so the cross-term 6ɵ_i²C is exactly the normal-ordering subtraction of the un-normal-ordered input Hamiltonian (86); eq. (106) then repackages it as a new mass shift. Starting instead from :H:, or from the field-eigenstate basis where ⟨ɵ|ɵ̂⁴|ɵ⟩ = ɵ⁴, the term vanishes; the 'unexpected vacuum structure' is the input by construction. The bookkeeping is inconsistent too: eq. (104) yields 6(λ_r+δλ)/4!
full rationale
The free-theory derivation (Sec. II) is self-contained and internally consistent: it is a genuine coherent-state computation of Tr(e^{−βH}), and the retained vacuum-energy term is a real consequence of keeping the un-normal-ordered operator Hamiltonian (albeit the standard H = :H: + E₀ bookkeeping). That part is not circular. The central interacting-theory claim, however, reduces by construction: the 6ɵ²⟨0|ɵ̂²|0⟩ cross-term of eq. (104), promoted in eqs. (105)–(106) to a 'novel' mass–VEV coupling 'absent in the existing literature', is the normal-ordering subtraction of the input Hamiltonian (86), as exhibited above; it disappears if the input is normal-ordered or if the field-eigenstate basis is used. The paper's premise that the standard field-eigenstate derivation is ill-defined is asserted, not proved — Sec. IV concedes 'we have not been able to find in the literature any rigorous construction of the identity operator' — whereas on the finite lattice of Sec. II that identity is a product of ordinary integrals over real numbers; this is a correctness/premise risk, not circularity. Self-citations by co-author W. A. Horowitz ([73], [74], [91]) appear only in the outlook (Casimir effect, finite-volume masses, cross sections) and are not load-bearing for the derivation. Verdict: the central 'prediction' reduces to its input representation by construction; score 6.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (5)
- standard math Trotter product formula for e^{-βH}
- domain assumption Canonical commutation relations [φ̂,π̂] = i/Δxⁿ δ_{rs}
- domain assumption Un-normal-ordered field operator Hamiltonian
- domain assumption Coherent states defined as displaced free vacuum
- domain assumption The standard field-eigenstate path integral is ill-defined
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Coherent State Path Integral Reveals Unexpected Vacuum Structure in Thermal Field Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UNI66BB
@misc{pith2026250711608,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Coherent State Path Integral Reveals Unexpected Vacuum Structure in Thermal Field Theory},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UNI66BB}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11608}
}
abstract
We construct the path integral formulation of the partition function for a free scalar thermal field theory using coherent states, first in the ladder operator basis and then in the field operator basis. In so doing, we provide for the first time a mapping in quantum field theory between the field-basis coherent states and ladder-basis coherent states. Using either basis, one finds terms missed in the usual path integral derivation, which we identify as the vacuum energy contribution to the partition function. We then extend the field-basis coherent state method to the interacting $\phi^4$ theory. In addition to the vacuum energy contribution, one finds a coupling of a vacuum expectation value to the mass term that is absent in the existing literature.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
(37) are well defined, we aim to prove the following coherent state relations
Coherent State Relations To ensure our coherent states from eq. (37) are well defined, we aim to prove the following coherent state relations. For the sake of readability, we will leave the limits of the sums implicit throughout this appendix. ˆapk |α⟩ = αpk |α⟩ ⟨ ˜α|α⟩ = e ∆pn P k 1 (2π)n 2Ek ˜α∗ pk αpk 1 = Y k Z ∞ −∞ dapk dbpk 2πV Ek e ∆pn P k 1 (2π)n 2...
-
[2]
αpk,i α∗ pk,i − ∆τ α∗ pk,i − α∗ pk,i−1 ∆τ ! +α∗ pk,i αpk,i − ∆τ αpk,i − αpk,i−1 ∆τ = NX i=1 K 2X k=− K 2
two scales are removed from the problem: t0, since t0 → −∞, and also t, since the final result of the parti- tion function must bet independent. We next divide the partition function intoN → ∞seg- ments, inserting the identity element of eq. (40) between each segment. Note that all identity insertions happen at a fixed real-time slicet. Returning to the d...
-
[3]
(G2) Proof: ˆapk |α⟩ = ˆapk e ∆pn P K 2 q=− K 2 1 (2π)n 2Eq αpq ˆa† pq |0⟩ = ˆapk ∞X i=0 1 i! ∆pn K 2X q=− K 2 1 (2π)n2Eq αpq ˆa† pq i |0⟩
Claim: The coherent state is an eigenstate of the annihilation operator ˆapk |α⟩ = αpk |α⟩ , (G1) ⟨α| ˆa† pk = α∗ pk ⟨α| . (G2) Proof: ˆapk |α⟩ = ˆapk e ∆pn P K 2 q=− K 2 1 (2π)n 2Eq αpq ˆa† pq |0⟩ = ˆapk ∞X i=0 1 i! ∆pn K 2X q=− K 2 1 (2π)n2Eq αpq ˆa† pq i |0⟩ . (G3) Using ˆapk |0⟩ = 0 and h ˆapk , ˆa† pq i = (2π)n2Ek 1 ∆pn δk,q, we can write ˆapk...
-
[4]
Claim: The coherent state orthogonality relation is ⟨ ˜α|α⟩ = e ∆pn P k 1 (2π)n 2Ek ˜α∗ pk αpk . (G5) Proof: ⟨ ˜α|α⟩ = ⟨0| e ∆pn P k 1 (2π)n 2Ek ˜α∗ pk ˆapk e ∆pn P q 1 (2π)n 2Eq αpq ˆa† pq |0⟩ = ⟨0| 1 + ∆pn X k ˜α∗ pk ˆapk (2π)n2Ek + 1 2! ∆pn X k ˜α∗ pk ˆapk (2π)n2Ek !2 + · · · 1 + ∆pn X q αpq ˆa† pq (2π)n2Eq + 1 2! ∆pn X q αpq ˆa† pq (2π)n2Eq ...
-
[5]
Claim: 1 = N Y k Z αpk ∈C dα∗ pk dαpk e −∆pn P k 1 (2π)n 2Ek ˜α∗ pk αpk |α⟩ ⟨α| (G7) ≡ Y k 1 2πV Ek Z ∞ −∞ dapk Z ∞ −∞ dbpk e −∆pn P k 1 (2π)n 2Ek α∗ pk αpk |α⟩ ⟨α| , where apk , bpk ∈ R are the real and imaginary parts ofαpk, respectively, αpk = apk + ibpk , α ∗ pk = apk − ibpk . 21 Proof: Maintaining a general normalizationN, our identity element become...
-
[6]
Given proper normalization, this leads to the following definition
Coherent State Representation using Displacement Operator A coherent state can be generated by acting with the displacement operator on the ground state. Given proper normalization, this leads to the following definition. For clarity and readability, we leave the limits of the sums implicit throughout this appendix. αi,a ≡e 1 2 ∆pn P k α∗ pk,i αpk,i (2π)n...
-
[7]
(60) can be expressed in terms of the variables and operatorsϕxr,i , πxr,i , ˆϕxr,a, and ˆπxr,a
Coherent State in the Field Basis In this appendix, we demonstrate how the coherent state defined in eq. (60) can be expressed in terms of the variables and operatorsϕxr,i , πxr,i , ˆϕxr,a, and ˆπxr,a. a. Change of Operator Variables We are working in the Heisenberg picture, as explained in section IID, where the position space field operators are defined...
-
[8]
We will utilize the canonical commutation relations from eqs
Field Basis Displacement Operator Commutation Relations Inthisappendix, weprovesomecommutationrelations for the displacement operator with the field operators in discretized space that we will use in our derivations. We will utilize the canonical commutation relations from eqs. (16), (35) and (36). Our fields commute with the 25 creation and annihilation ...
Show all 112 references
-
[9]
(72) by commuting all annihilation operators to the right, where they act on the vacuum and thereby annihilate it
Commutation of Displacement Operators in the Path Integral We aim to remove the displacement operators from the expression in eq. (72) by commuting all annihilation operators to the right, where they act on the vacuum and thereby annihilate it. We proceed as follows: 26 ˆD†(ϕi...
-
[10]
(80) NY i=1 N −2 i,i N +2 i,i−1 = exp − ∆τ ∆pn NX i=1 K 2X k=− K 2 1 (2π)n2Ek α∗ pk,i αpk,i − αpk,i−1 ∆τ , and apply a change of field variables from eqs
Coherent State Normalization in the Field Basis Consider the exponent of the normalization constant of eq. (80) NY i=1 N −2 i,i N +2 i,i−1 = exp − ∆τ ∆pn NX i=1 K 2X k=− K 2 1 (2π)n2Ek α∗ pk,i αpk,i − αpk,i−1 ∆τ , and apply a change of field variables from eqs. (52) and (53) −...
-
[11]
N. P. Landsman and C. G. van Weert, Phys. Rept.145, 141 (1987)
1987
-
[12]
A. V. Smilga, Phys. Rept. 291, 1 (1997), arXiv:hep- ph/9612347
1997
-
[13]
A. K. Das,Finite Temperature Field Theory(World Sci- entific, New York, 1997)
1997
-
[14]
M. E. Carrington, D.-f. Hou, and M. H. Thoma, Eur. Phys. J. C7, 347 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9708363
1999 arXiv
-
[15]
Le Bellac,Thermal Field Theory (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2000)
M. Le Bellac,Thermal Field Theory (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2000)
2000
-
[16]
M. H. Thoma, New developments and applications of thermal field theory (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0010164
2000 arXiv
-
[17]
J. I. Kapusta and C. Gale, Finite-Temperature Field Theory: Principles and Applications , 2nd ed. (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2006)
2006
- [18]
-
[19]
P. B. Arnold, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 16, 2555 (2007), arXiv:0708.0812 [hep-ph]
2007 arXiv
-
[20]
Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics, Cam- bridge Graduate Texts in Physics (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2015)
P. Coleman,Introduction to Many-Body Physics, Cam- bridge Graduate Texts in Physics (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2015)
2015
-
[21]
Laine and A
M. Laine and A. Vuorinen, Basics of Thermal Field Theory: A Modern Primer, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 925 (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016)
2016
-
[22]
Rammer,Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2007) reissued in paperback on March 3, 2011
J. Rammer,Quantum Field Theory of Non-equilibrium States (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2007) reissued in paperback on March 3, 2011
2007
-
[23]
A. M. Zagoskin,Quantum Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2014)
2014
-
[24]
Strickland,Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Vol- ume 2 (IOP, 2019)
M. Strickland,Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Vol- ume 2 (IOP, 2019)
2019
-
[25]
Strickland,Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Vol- ume 3 (IOP, 2019)
M. Strickland,Relativistic Quantum Field Theory, Vol- ume 3 (IOP, 2019)
2019
-
[26]
Ghiglieri, A
J. Ghiglieri, A. Kurkela, M. Strickland, and A. Vuori- nen, Phys. Rept.880, 1 (2020), arXiv:2002.10188 [hep- ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[27]
M. G. Mustafa, An introduction to thermal field the- ory and some of its applications (2022), arXiv preprint: 2207.00534, arXiv:2207.00534 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[28]
Salvio, Universe 11, 16 (2025), arXiv:2411.02498 [hep-ph]
A. Salvio, Universe 11, 16 (2025), arXiv:2411.02498 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[29]
A. D. Linde, Rept. Prog. Phys.42, 389 (1979)
1979
-
[30]
A. D. Linde, Nucl. Phys. B216, 421 (1983), [Erratum: Nucl.Phys.B 223, 544 (1983)]
1983
-
[31]
E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe, Vol. 69 (Taylor and Francis, 2019)
2019
-
[32]
A. G. Cohen, D. B. Kaplan, and A. E. Nelson, Phys. Lett. B 263, 86 (1991)
1991
-
[33]
Yamaguchi and A
A. Yamaguchi and A. Sugamoto, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 2599 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9408201
1994 arXiv
-
[34]
Croon, O
D. Croon, O. Gould, P. Schicho, T. V. I. Tenkanen, and G. White, JHEP04, 055, arXiv:2009.10080 [hep-ph]
2009 arXiv
-
[35]
Braaten and R
E. Braaten and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. B337, 569 (1990)
1990
-
[36]
D. H. Rischke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.52, 197 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305030
2004 arXiv
-
[37]
G. F. Giudice, A. Notari, M. Raidal, A. Riotto, and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B685, 89 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0310123
2004
-
[38]
Turbide, C
S. Turbide, C. Gale, S. Jeon, and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. C 72, 014906 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0502248
2005 arXiv
-
[39]
Anisimov, D
A. Anisimov, D. Besak, and D. Bodeker, JCAP2011 (03), 042, arXiv:1012.3784 [hep-ph]
-
[40]
van Hees, C
H. van Hees, C. Gale, and R. Rapp, Phys. Rev. C84, 054906 (2011), arXiv:1108.2131 [hep-ph]
2011 arXiv
-
[41]
Gorda, A
T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Österman, R. Paatelainen, S. Säppi, P. Schicho, K. Seppänen, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 107, 036012 (2023), arXiv:2204.11279 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[42]
Gyulassy and L
M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013
2005 arXiv
-
[43]
B. B. Backet al. (PHOBOS), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 28 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410022
2005 arXiv
-
[44]
Arsene et al
I. Arsene et al. (BRAHMS), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 1 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0410020
2005 arXiv
-
[45]
Adcoxet al
K. Adcoxet al. (PHENIX Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 184 (2005)
2005
-
[46]
Adamset al
J. Adamset al. (STAR Collaboration), Nucl. Phys. A 757, 102 (2005)
2005
-
[47]
Aamodt et al
K. Aamodt et al. (ALICE Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252302 (2010)
2010
-
[48]
Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Phys
G. Aadet al.(ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252303 (2010)
2010
-
[49]
Chatrchyanet al
S. Chatrchyanet al. (CMS), Phys. Rev. C84, 024906 (2011), arXiv:1102.1957 [nucl-ex]
2011 arXiv
-
[50]
Chatrchyanet al
S. Chatrchyanet al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 712, 176 (2012)
2012
- [51]
-
[52]
Dean (Sphenix), PoSICHEP2020, 731 (2021)
C. Dean (Sphenix), PoSICHEP2020, 731 (2021)
2021
-
[53]
B. L. Friman and O. V. Maxwell, Astrophys. J.232, 541 (1979)
1979
-
[54]
M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Schäfer, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1455 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep- ph]
2008 arXiv
-
[55]
Schmitt,Dense matter in compact stars: A pedagog- ical introduction, Vol
A. Schmitt,Dense matter in compact stars: A pedagog- ical introduction, Vol. 811 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
-
[56]
Cheng et al., Phys
M. Cheng et al., Phys. Rev. D 77, 014511 (2008), arXiv:0710.0354 [hep-lat]
2008 arXiv
-
[57]
Gorda, K
T. Gorda, K. Hebeler, A. Kurkela, A. Schwenk, and A. Vuorinen, Astrophys. J. 955, 100 (2023), arXiv:2212.10576 [astro-ph.HE]
2023 arXiv
-
[58]
G. D. Moore and T. Gorda, JHEP 12, 133, arXiv:2309.15149 [nucl-th]
-
[59]
Gorda, R
T. Gorda, R. Paatelainen, S. Säppi, and K. Seppänen, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 181902 (2023), arXiv:2307.08734 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[60]
E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, V. Dexheimer, M. Hanauske, S. Schramm, H. Stöcker, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1807.03684 [astro-ph.HE]
2019 arXiv
-
[61]
Fields, A
J. Fields, A. Prakash, M. Breschi, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, and A. da Silva Schneider, Astrophys. J. Lett. 952, L36 (2023), arXiv:2302.11359 [astro-ph.HE]
2023 arXiv
-
[62]
Vuorinen, Acta Phys
A. Vuorinen, Acta Phys. Polon. B 55, 4 (2024), arXiv:2405.01141 [hep-ph]
2024 arXiv
-
[63]
Y. Aoki, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B 643, 46 (2006), arXiv:hep-lat/0609068
2006 arXiv
-
[64]
Y. Aoki, S. Borsanyi, S. Durr, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 6 (06), 88, arXiv:0903.4155 [hep-lat]. 29
-
[65]
Borsanyi, Z
S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. K. Szabo (Wuppertal- Budapest), JHEP 9 (09), 73, arXiv:1005.3508 [hep-lat]
-
[66]
Rothkopf, T
A. Rothkopf, T. Hatsuda, and S. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 162001 (2012), arXiv:1108.1579 [hep-lat]
2012 arXiv
-
[67]
Altenkort, O
L. Altenkort, O. Kaczmarek, R. Larsen, P. Petreczky, and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 231902 (2023), arXiv:2302.08501
2023 arXiv
-
[68]
Borsanyi, G
S. Borsanyi, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. Katz, S. Krieg, C. Ratti, and K. Szabo, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 4, 593 (2011)
2011
-
[69]
Borsanyi, Z
S. Borsanyi, Z. Fodor, C. Hoelbling, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, and K. K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B730, 99 (2014), arXiv:1309.5258 [hep-lat]
2014 arXiv
-
[70]
R. A. Soltz, E. Laermann, F. Karsch, S. Mukherjee, and D. Vranas, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.65, 379 (2015), arXiv:1503.05374
2015 arXiv
-
[71]
Busza, K
W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]
2018 arXiv
-
[72]
Bazavov and others [HotQCD Collaboration], Phys
A. Bazavov and others [HotQCD Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 88, 094021 (2013), arXiv:1309.2317
2013 arXiv
-
[73]
Datta, R
S. Datta, R. V. Gavai, and S. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D95, 054512 (2017), arXiv:1610.06339
2017 arXiv
-
[74]
Aarts, C
G. Aarts, C. R. Allton, M. Lombardo, M. B. Oktay, S. Kim, and J.-I. Skullerud, Phys. Rev. D76, 094513 (2007), arXiv:0705.2198
2007 arXiv
-
[75]
Aarts, C
G. Aarts, C. Allton, S. Kim, M. Lombardo, M. B. Ok- tay, S. Kim, and J.-I. Skullerud, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 061602 (2011), arXiv:1010.3725
2011 arXiv
-
[76]
Aarts, PoS LA TTICE2015, 065 (2016), arXiv:1512.05145
G. Aarts, PoS LA TTICE2015, 065 (2016), arXiv:1512.05145
2016 arXiv
-
[77]
Brambilla, V
N. Brambilla, V. Leino, P. Petreczky, and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D102, 074503 (2020), arXiv:2007.10078
2020 arXiv
-
[78]
Kobes, Phys
R. Kobes, Phys. Rev. D42, 562 (1990)
1990
-
[79]
N. F. Svaiter, J. Math. Phys. 45, 4524 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0410016
2004 arXiv
-
[80]
Ghisoiu, Finite size effects in quantum field theory, Master’s thesis, Bielefeld U
I. Ghisoiu, Finite size effects in quantum field theory, Master’s thesis, Bielefeld U. (2010)
2010
-
[81]
Fister and J
L. Fister and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D92, 076009 (2015), arXiv:1504.05166 [hep-ph]
2015 arXiv
-
[82]
Karabali and V
D. Karabali and V. P. Nair, Phys. Rev. D98, 105009 (2018), arXiv:1808.07979 [hep-th]
2018 arXiv
-
[83]
Kitazawa, S
M. Kitazawa, S. Mogliacci, I. Kolbé, and W. A. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D 99, 094507 (2019), arXiv:1904.00241 [hep-lat]
2019 arXiv
-
[84]
Mogliacci, I
S. Mogliacci, I. Kolbé, and W. A. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D 102, 116017 (2020), arXiv:1807.07871 [hep-th]
2020 arXiv
-
[85]
Horowitz and A
W. Horowitz and A. Rothkopf, SciPost Phys. Proc.10, 025 (2022), arXiv:2109.01422 [hep-ph]
2022 arXiv
-
[86]
J. S. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys.2, 407 (1961)
1961
-
[87]
L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.47, 1515 (1964)
1964
-
[88]
Chou, Z.-b
K.-c. Chou, Z.-b. Su, B.-l. Hao, and L. Yu, Phys. Rept. 118, 1 (1985)
1985
-
[89]
Matsubara, Prog
T. Matsubara, Prog. Theor. Phys.14, 351 (1955)
1955
-
[90]
Itzykson and J
C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber, Quantum Field The- ory, International Series In Pure and Applied Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980)
1980
-
[91]
M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Addison-Wesley,Reading, Mas- sachusetts, 1995)
1995
-
[92]
Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I: Foundations (Cambridge University Press, 1995)
1995
-
[93]
Coleman, Notes from sidney coleman’s physics 253a: Quantum field theory, https://arxiv.org/abs/1110
S. Coleman, Notes from sidney coleman’s physics 253a: Quantum field theory, https://arxiv.org/abs/1110. 5013 (2011), arXiv:1110.5013 [physics.ed-ph]
2011 arXiv
-
[94]
M. D. Schwartz,Quantum Field Theory and the Stan- dard Model(Cambridge University Press, 2014)
2014
-
[95]
Montvay and G
I. Montvay and G. Munster, Quantum Fields on a Lattice (Cambridge University Press, 1994) Chap. 2.1, p. 54
1994
-
[96]
D. J. Griffiths and D. F. Schroeter, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018)
2018
-
[97]
H. F. Trotter, Proceedings of the American Mathemat- ical Society 10, 545 (1959)
1959
-
[98]
Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets, 5th ed
H. Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets, 5th ed. (World Scientific, 2009)
2009
-
[99]
L. S. Schulman, Techniques and Applications of Path Integration (Dover Publications, 2005) originally pub- lished in 1981 by Wiley-Interscience
2005
-
[100]
Andres, F
C. Andres, F. Dominguez, R. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli, J. Holguin, C. Marquet, and I. Moult, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 262301 (2023), arXiv:2209.11236 [hep-ph]
2023 arXiv
-
[101]
H. B. G. Casimir, Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet.51, 793 (1948)
1948
-
[102]
W. A. Horowitz and J. F. D. Plessis, Phys. Rev. D105, L091901 (2022), arXiv:2203.01259 [hep-th]
2022 arXiv
-
[103]
Umeda, S
T. Umeda, S. Ejiri, S. Aoki, T. Hatsuda, K. Kanaya, Y. Maezawa, and H. Ohno, Phys. Rev. D79, 051501 (2009), 0809.2842
2009 arXiv
-
[104]
Bazavov, T
A. Bazavov, T. Bhattacharya, M. Cheng, and P. Pe- treczky, Phys. Rev. D80, 014504 (2009), 0903.4379
2009 arXiv
- [105]
-
[106]
A. V. Belitsky, in The Phenomenology of Large N(c) QCD (2002) pp. 128–142, arXiv:hep-ph/0204047
2002 arXiv
-
[107]
Attems, J
M. Attems, J. Casalderrey-Solana, D. Mateos, I. Pa- padimitriou, D. Santos-Oliván, C. F. Sopuerta, M. Tri- ana, and M. Zilhão, JHEP 10, 155, arXiv:1603.01254 [hep-th]
- [108]
-
[109]
D. M. Hofman and J. Maldacena, JHEP 05, 012, arXiv:0803.1467 [hep-th]
-
[110]
H. Chen, I. Moult, X. Zhang, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 102, 054012 (2020), arXiv:2004.11381 [hep-ph]
2020 arXiv
-
[112]
B 861, 139239 (2025), arXiv:2409.12235 [hep-ph]
A.Budhraja, H.Chen,andW.J.Waalewijn,Phys.Lett. B 861, 139239 (2025), arXiv:2409.12235 [hep-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[2010]
arXiv:1001.3294 [astro-ph.SR]
Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.